CASA – Words fail.

[blackhand]

@Leadsled
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...60/casa515.pdf
I suggest you read it again,
Para 3 Approval

Cheers

[Sunfish]

The instrument is valid for a year and is an exemption.

This is simply a rotten and corrupt way to regulate anything.

Coupled with the CASA /ATSB MOU this implies that the full spectrum of aviation activity by anyone can be criminalised at any time by the application of the regs as interpreted by the CASA member at the time.

The ONLY logical outcome from the perspective of a private pilot is to avoid any and all contact, with any official from CASA, ASA and ATSB.

That means: Minimal radio calls, turning off transponders, non attendence at any aviation event that attracts CASA, for example, the Birdsville races and non reporting of any maintenance or flight related safety issue, let alone any incident reports, since under the MOU, ATSB can cause CASA to initiate an investigation.

....And as we have seen, CASA can always find an excuse to cancel a licence.


To put that another way, I have been "involved" in Three of what I would call "Incidents" by my personal standards. If CASA wanted my scalp for some reason, each of them is an offence under one or other of the catch all provisions - with strict liability.

[blackhand]

The instrument is valid for a year and is an exemption.

Jan 2012 til 31 December 2013, makes two years.
No wonder there is so much angst when there is so little comprehension of plain english

[Sunfish]

It matters not Blackie, it is an exemption, NOT A PERMISSION.

This is the simple problem with the entire cluster**** that is aviation regulation in Australia - everything is prohibited but certain acts may be exempt from this blanket prohibition.

Look no further than CASA's use of the definition of "Regular public transport" over the years to shut down a variety of charter operations...at the same time as turning a blind eye to the "Yield management" practices - cancelling scheduled flights, of Qantas and Jetstar (and perhaps Virgin too for all I know).

That is simple corruption Blackie.

[Creampuff]

It’s actually an approval, not an exemption.

You have to be able to “read”, and "read" it, to know what it is.

[Sunfish]

Creamy it says it is an "approval" - but it has conditions attached to it - its a conditional approval.

Exemption: implies freedom from a penalty or from some liability, especially one that is disagreeable or threatening.

Given CASA behaviour, that means that the onus is on the maintainer to prove that they complied with all the conditions of the approval - a neat reversal of the onus of proof and yet more money for the lawyers.

I'm skinning the ailerons today IAW the Sunfish system, some plans, some DVD Video, and not much else.

[blackhand]

Given CASA behaviour, that means that the onus is on the maintainer to prove that they complied with all the conditions of the approval - a neat reversal of the onus of proof and yet more money for the lawyers.

Not a problem for LAMEs, we can read and comprehend.

Cheers

[LeadSled]

Blackhand,
Please read both documents in their entirety, and then ask CASA (what used to be Bankstown) what they think it means, if you are an industry LAME you might be in for a bit of a shock ---- including sticker shock from CASA's swinging new charges.

I have seen it in action, have you??

Mach. E, Avelli,
Great idea re. NZ, but guess what, CASA has almost completely emasculated the original intentions of the TTMRA, as far as Australian aviation is concerned.

[blackhand]

@Leadsled
Yea mate, beats me, I have talked to two offices(not in Bankstown) and have been told keep doing the maintenance the way I have always been.
I'll ring the Bankstown office on monday and check

Cheers

[Arnold E]

What all of this says, is that nobody has a clue, so carry on as before and you cant go wrong.

Actually if you have a look at it, (as a comparison) there are no known rules, as there is no known borders to Australia

[jas24zzk]

Very sad when the people with such a huge responsibility such as basic maintenance cannot work out the rules


Someone said earlier, in another thread, that we are not going to win, even with inundating the politcians with 'love letters'

I tend to agree. Letters can be 'filed' appropriately.

It seems to me, that no individual group misses out on being adversely affected by the 'regulator'

From Trainee pilots, to the major operators, we are all affected, even the ATC gods are feeling the pinch of over-regulation.

The only way you are going to have the needed effect, is to shut down air operations in the whole country for a week.

Pilots,
Air Operators
ATC
Maintainers.......

The whole shebang. nobody works for a week. Country virtually grinds to a halt...MAYBE then the press will start reporting it as a matter of public interest, but then the risk exists the press will initially side with the guvmint.


You wouldn't even need to apply to FWA for protected industrial action if the AOC holders agreed to shut down.

You might even get some of the banks on side, as some of this crap being passed as legislation appears to threaten some of the banks investments in the industry...and we all know how lumpy banks can get.

[LeadSled]

Blackhand,
So you are happy with the reverse onus of proof, are you.
Because you believe you can read??
But can you comprehend??
And yet you haven't really read and comprehended.
Anybody contemplating "doing what they always did" will last to the first CASA audit, or the first incident of an insurance company refusing to pay, claiming maintenance and repairs not carried out in accord with the regulations.
How much industry experience do you really have???
Tootle pip!!

[Progressive]

AMROBA memory fail

It appears Ken Cannane has forgotten some earlier CASA rulings and misinterpereted the intent of CASR 21 himself.

Approval of replacement parts is covered under a separate CASR and will continue as normal.

STC's will continue to be accepted form the Type certifying country as they always have under AWB 00-16 and CASR 21.114:

"CASR 21.114 Foreign STCs states: A certificate (however described) for an aircraft, aircraft engine or propeller that is issued by or for the NAA of a recognised country and is equivalent to a STC that could have been issued by CASA (a foreign STC) is taken to have been issued by CASA for these regulations."

The vast majority of GA aircraft which do not include a specific structural repair manual include a statement "structural repairs may be completed in accordance with AC43.13 ..." A similar statement allowing standard wiring repairs is also generally incuded in the appropriate manual chapter.

In addition to this CASA do have an approved list of standard practices manuals (including AC43) which are considered acceptable data. (I will try to find this and include it next edit). Corrosion repair is likewise covered by the FAA corrosion control manual.

So of the examples given in this article NONE will require an additional EO under part M.

Before I am villified on this site as a CASA and CASR loving individual I should add that I am not: I am however an aircraft owner, LAME, and spend a good portion of time teaching our new generation of LAME's the maintenance regulations for a Part 147 MTO.

[halfmanhalfbiscuit]

CASA are not an easy regulator to deal with. Situation normal it seems, lots of opinions being generated by the new regs. I find EASA clear and if you do have to ask then you get a clear answer. Glad to be away from CASA's interference.

Oh, and a legal entity change or change of ownership is not charged as a NEW approval as some regulators try to do. Made much more sense to set up a business in Europe. I just felt casa were a drain, although individuals in there often do their best. But the system lets them down.

[weloveseaplanes]

The vast majority of GA aircraft which do not include a specific structural repair manual include a statement "structural repairs may be completed in accordance with AC43.13 ..." A similar statement allowing standard wiring repairs is also generally incuded in the appropriate manual chapter.

In addition to this CASA do have an approved list of standard practices manuals (including AC43) which are considered acceptable data. (I will try to find this and include it next edit). Corrosion repair is likewise covered by the FAA corrosion control manual.

Progressive if you have any more information regarding . . .
the FAA corrosion control manual
the approved list of standard practice manuals
using AC 43.13 in lieu of a Structural Repair Manual
. . . could you please post the appropriate links thank you.

Over here in the Pacific an inspector went nuts .i.e. was shouting and red in the face that our LAME was keeping the aircraft flying with common sense practices gathered from 30 plus years of hands on experience rather than by religiously following a non-existent SRM for our GA aircraft. He seemed unable to comprehend that the manuals for GA aircraft
and airline aircraft are so different. He kept saying you must show me in writing in a SRM specific for your aircraft how the LAME can treat that corrosion. We had no SRM and so could only reply that well as you provided him with the licence to work on the aircraft and he has many decades of experience we are relying on his experience and qualifications to maintain our aircraft rather than following an SRM which aren't produced for our aircraft.

This situation was never fully resolved and in the context of a number of strange dictates by the inspector which took months to comply and which after many tens of thousands of dollars of work, 40 plus missed flights, a complete ignoring of the world expert being flown in to inspect and certify the aircraft as not needing the bizarre list of work the inspector ordered, meetings missed by the inspector at the last moment, calls not returned etc and much pain and confusion he never even came in to check and see how the parts he wanted removed and replaced were still serviceable - just as three experienced engineers said they were before he grounded us and launched this huge attack on us for flying and maintaining without an aircraft specific SRM.

It left a very strange taste in ones mouth and an understanding that for inspectors SRMs have a place higher than the bible and bring out a religious fervor in bureaucrats . . . .

[Kharon]

Progress - I am however an aircraft owner, LAME, and spend a good portion of time teaching our new generation of LAME's the maintenance regulations for a Part 147 MTO.

Thanks for the post, I for one would value a couple more on the subject. It's a pleasant change to have a 'professional', cogent explanation. The sad thing is, that it was needed for any other reason other than 'educational'.

That's the bit gets my goat; the regs are just not (give or take) able to be 'properly' translated into a working (even modern) language.

The way the regs are presented and the language does not assist. There is always that lingering uncertainty, particularly about matters related maintenance. Be interesting to know how many calls the boys at CASA field asking for a 'translation' or clarification. The regs must put them in a strange position, especially if the 'opinion' offered was judged incorrect after an accident.

The regulations make it as difficult for CASA to 'help' or administer as they do for the industry to comply; it's potentially a hellish situation for everyone, except of course the legal profession.

A rule may be disliked or clumsy and opinions of the 'rule's' value may vary but; by and large, most folk should be able to read and 'properly' understand the thing, seems to me this would make compliance so much easier for both sides.

[blackhand]

@LeadSled
As I said, I will be talking with your Bankstown office on Monday. It would help if you can give me the name of the AWI advising you so I can talk to him direct. PM me if you prefer.

@Progressive
AFAIK major repairs and mods have to be approved under the new Part M, similar to CAR 35, AC43 can be used as a guide by the approving Engineer Organisation but not by the LAME.
As you said, all minor maintnance can be carried out in accordance with the AC43 series if the aircraft maintenance manual doesn't cover it.

@weloveseaplanes
Are you refering to Lake Buccaneer?

@ Kharon
There is no ambiguity, unless of course English is your second language.
Cheers

[Progressive]

weloveseaplanes
No problem, the approved list of repair documents has been removed from the CAR's and is now contained in a temporary instrument found here:

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...60/casa515.pdf

presumably this will soon be incorporated into the CASR's as is the current CASA process for developing new rules - remove old rules and the bulk of new ones using instruments (or CAAP) to fill any gaps until all can be incorporated into the new suite.

This take stime and can lead to comfusion with rules and regulations spread amongst CAR, CASR, CAAP and Instruments until it all gets consolidated.

The FAA corrosion repair AC can be found here:
AC 43-4A - [Large AC] Corrosion Control for Aircraft - Document Information


As for using AC 43 in lieu of SRM it depends on what the aircraft manual say. Mine states:


Minor repairs such as patching the fabric, welding, wing rib repair, etc. may be made in accordance with regulations set forth in FAA Advisory Circular 43.13-1( ). No major structural repairs are recommended without consulting the manufacturer.



You will find a similar statement in the structures section of the Maintenance manual for most GA aircraft (Beech are the exception I can think of). And although my aircraft states fabric it is actually a 2002 build so this is not just for old aircraft!

[LeadSled]

----- and is now contained in a temporary instrument found here:

Progressive,
An interesting choice of non-de-plume, those of a "progressive" approach generally means advocating more regulation and higher taxes.

Back to the subject, if you are so up on regulatory matters ---- "is now contained etc" is hardly accurate is it.

Instrument 515/12 replaced Instrument 12/09, signed by Mark Sinclair, which was anther part of a string of Instruments going back quite a while, probably six or seven years, which, for the first time, generally allowed advisory publications, howsoever titled, from an NAA, to be used by anybody, without CASA specific approval of organisation and purpose.

Until 515/12, this string of instruments were all more or less the same, just re-issued, and it is instructive to put 12/09 and 515/15 side by side, and go through them, word for word.

Only by doing that, with an open mind, not per-conceived conclusions on what is being said, will you start to understand what a serious change this actually is!!

As this is now in place, along with Part 21 M, this has a serious impact on other sections of Part 21, and, indeed, attempts to negate and probably legally succeeds, in emasculating other provisions of Part 21, and the Australia-US Bi-Lateral Airworthiness Agreement.

In fact, it undermines the whole philosophy of Parts 21-35, takes us back to before 1998, and in some respects, takes us back before 1992.

Knowing the personalities involved in 515/12, I have absolutely no doubt that this is entirely the intention ---- to inject CASA back into "approval" areas that, post 1992 or 1998, deliberately, by legislative change, excluded CASA.

Truly "Progressive"

Read it carefully, sure STCs are accepted, by you now need an EO to carry out the modification that any STC entails.

Likewise use of PMA parts ---- using PMA parts, as opposed to OEM parts, is a "modification", therefor an EO is now required.

That some regional offices of CASA don't understand the ramifications of these changes comes as no surprise.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Those of you with any actual familiarity wit EASA Part 66, 145 etc., will know that the CASA "EASA like" engineering and maintenance suite is unrecognizable in EASA terms. Indeed, unrecognizable compared to any other major aviation country's continuing airworthiness regulations.

Once again, with quite a deal of international harmonization taking place, particularly on airworthiness and maintenance area, Australia is heading off into the sunset on its own little frolic, to the very great cost of jobs and business in Australian aviation, and what little is left of the MRO sector.

Indeed, little New Zealand, on latest figures, has a substantially greater MRO export income than Australia, as well as the foreign exchange saving of ANZ not having to go offshore with MRO requirements to remain internationally competitive.

Tootle pip!!

[Sunfish]

It has been obvious for many years that Aviation regulation in Australia is simply perverse.

It is designed to further the interests of the staff of the regulator and their cronies - and no one else.

The regulatory reform program and the very regulations themselves are evidence of this.

The matter at the heart of this thread - the use of AC43-13B and similar could have been simply handled by a Plain English sentence inserted in the regulations themselves:

"In the absence of an aircraft specific SRM and the absence of a repair scheme for the specific repair approved by a national regulator, approved maintenance data, for example FAA AC43-13B, may be used to effect minor repairs."

A further rider is needed that if there is conflict in the approved data (ie not in the SRM or repair scheme) it is to be referred to CASA.

The definitions section does the rest.

I happen to know the former leader of the project to rewrite Victorias laws in plain English which was completed around 1997. He was formerly from PM and Cabinet, then Vic. Premiers department, then a commissioner for small claims and is now a magistrate.

If I run into him in the next few months, I will ask him to look at the regs and give his opinion - it will no doubt be both colorful and accurate. He could also suggest a fix as he was a master of bureaucratic infighting at one stage.

Absent that, it will take Three smoking holes in quick succession with great loss of life and a royal commission before any change is possible.